Prev: Some projects were hidden because they exist in the workspace directory
Next: light weight types
From: Arne Vajhøj on 5 Oct 2009 22:35 Lew wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> You are correct. >> >> My mistake. > > Thank you, Arne, for demonstrating how a person can take correction > without thinking that someone accused him of lying. I am probably in the top decile in stubbornness. But there is not much point in trying to argue what is polynomial and what is exponential. It would be like trying to argue that 2+2=5. Arne
From: Peter Duniho on 6 Oct 2009 03:05 On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:35:42 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: > [...] > But there is not much point in trying to argue what is > polynomial and what is exponential. It would be like > trying to argue that 2+2=5. Um. But, it is! It's well-known that 2+2=5 for large values of 2. Sorry to mess up your analogy. :)
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 02:25
Arne Vajh�j wrote: > Lew wrote: >> Arne Vajh�j wrote: >>> You are correct. >>> >>> My mistake. >> >> [gratuitous personal attack deleted] Wrong. > I am probably in the top decile in stubbornness. Admission duly noted for the record. > But there is not much point in trying to argue what is > polynomial and what is exponential. It would be like > trying to argue that 2+2=5. Who was arguing either? I just pointed out that adding more variation to the password characters is the former and adding more suffix length or similarly is the latter, which is perfectly correct. |